I'm not sure why Salon put the latest installment of the feud between David Horowitz and Joe Conason under "News" instead of under "31 Ejaculations" [the Salon Sex series], which is where this testosterone-driven dogfight belongs. I don't care if they expound their views on the issues of the day, but do they have to insult each other in the process? Journalism is supposed to be about the stories, not about those who cover them.
-- Jeff Slutzky
David Horowitz replies to Joe Conason's rebuttal of his column with a complaint about perceived personal attacks and immediately unloads with unpleasantly juvenile broadsides himself. Can we find some writers capable of mature discussion of the issues?
I didn't vote for Clinton and I'm not fond of either party but I do feel that Horowitz completely fails to justify his claim of "most corrupt administration in history." The Reagan and Nixon administrations were definitely more smelly and Horowitz fails to refute this. Simply asserting that key charges in the various scandals will be shown to be factual sometime in the future is completely unpersuasive and irresponsible as well.
-- Bill Carter
Bravo, David Horowitz! Once again your arguments embarrass the sniping and diversionary name-calling of Clinton apologists like Conason. Leftist hipsters may think he draws blood, but they remind me of nothing so much as a mindless claque of high schoolers whose ultimate objective in everything is to appear "cool" and superior. Conason is all attitude and condescension; Horowitz's blows are telling and cumulative.
-- Neal Warth
Joe Conason and David Horowitz are both good writers -- except when they are writing about themselves or writing about their colleagues writing about themselves. This petty bickering is neither newsworthy nor interesting.
Cease and desist at once? There is too much going on in the world to waste space by showcasing an in-house pissing contest.
-- K.S. O'Donoghue
Shares